It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

French launch airstrike against IS in Raqqa

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:37 PM

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chishuppu

I created a thread on the very subject of there having been a warning issued the day before the attack so...yes.

link me

Where is the multi-quote feature?

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:38 PM

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:49 PM
Here's something stupid me didn't know.Guess I haven't been paying attention, but France has been second most active (even behind Russia,,,ha) in carrying out raids in the Middle East, primarily in Iraq.

France more active than rest of the west in tackling Syria

First targets in Syria in late September. And...

On 8 October, France attacked an Isis training camp in Raqqa, capital of the group’s self-proclaimed caliphate in north-eastern Syria. It was believed to house foreign fighters, including French nationals, but Hollande denied they were targeting a specific individual.


In all, France has carried out about 1,300 sorties in Iraq, with 271 airstrikes destroying more than 450 terrorist targets. Only a few strikes have been carried out in Syria. It is using six Rafale multi-role fighter jets stationed in the United Arab Emirates and six Mirage 2000 fighters deployed in Jordan.

That might explain a few things.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:50 PM
If right wing white supremist terrorists with headquarters in Spokane WA were sending cells to create terror in other parts of the world, would it be appropriate for the UN to fly over and carpet bomb Spokane?

Why attack the U.S.? This is clearly not the U.S. Military causing this terror.
It's individual terrorists living in Spokane.

Does this mean any citizens who can't afford to move out of Spokane or don't want to because, why should they, be bombed by the UN?
edit on 15-11-2015 by NowWhat because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:53 PM
a reply to: NowWhat

Since the United Nations isn't supposed to carry out offensive military operations...


posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:57 PM

originally posted by: chishuppu

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: chishuppu
a reply to: spy66

so they told no one yet you are telling me all about how you know about what they told no one. I don't know buddy.

The media have already made a News report on the subject. At least here in Norway.

link me

I am yet to revieve an answer from anyone how they verify a claim from a group or how that group expresses that claim.

Google translation from the whole article:

After the attacks against Charlie Hebdo editorial on January 7, was France's terror preparedness is raised to the top level; Alert atentat. It was lowered for the rest of the country for a week, but Paris still has operated with highest terror level until yesterday's coordinated terrorist attack.

Contingency level implies a definitive threat; that one expects a major terrorist attack and work to defend against this.

As a consequence of the raised readiness level was 10,000 military and 1,000 police officers stationed around the country to protect potential terrorist targets, many of which were still deployed when terror struck again yesterday. In recent months, synagogues, landmarks and government buildings have been specially guarded.

But despite the preparedness level in Paris was at its highest, the city was hit again.

One of the eight alleged terrorists have been identified. Police have identified him through fingerprints. He described as a man who was known by the French ette direction as a radicalized.

Arrest a week before Intelligence Blogger Sofrep writes that French police and intelligence several weeks ago was in meetings with German federal police to discuss an impending terrorist attack against Paris.

"This is not confirmed, and the newspaper has not been able to find others based on own sources report this".

It now is clear is that the 51-year-old who was arrested in Bavaria last week, linked to yesterday's terrorist attack in Paris.
The man was arrested by the German-Austrian border on November 5, including firearms, explosives and hand grenades in his possession. He was heading for Paris, writes The Guardian.

Eight hours before the terror struck yesterday, stormed the French police station Gare de Lyon, after notification of a bomb threat. A man should have been arrested, and the station was evacuated.

futile preparedness
Despite it raises the level of terror, there have been three minor terrorist attack against France before yesterday koordinete action in Paris.

• 19 April 2015: A French-Algerian man kills a woman in Villejuif while he prepares attack on a church. He imposes himself gunshot wounds and are shortly after arrested by the police.

• 27th June 2015: One person was arrested after an attack on a gas plant east of France. One person was beheaded during the attack.

• In August, a 26 year old Moroccan overpowered three tourists in it he attacked with Kalashnikov on a fast train from Amsterdam to Paris.

- In July, grenades and large quantities of explosives stolen from a military facility in a Miramas southeast France. Thieves should have come away with 200 detonators as well as grenades and plastic explosives.

In addition to increased surveillance of military and police since January, the French continue direction operated with broader powers the past six months.

In May adopted France a new and comprehensive surveillance law, including giving the intelligence opportunity to monitor phone activity and email without judicial orders.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:58 PM
a reply to: NowWhat

If there were terrorists in Spokane WA and the state government and/or federal government had no interest in taking care of the problem...and the terrorist sphere of influence starts to spread to other countries, I'd expect other countries to have a choice word or two to say in the matter...

If I'm sick, that's my problem. But I'm sure you don't want me to be careless and allow my sickness to spread to you...correct?

A2D(PS, why's it gotta be Spokane? too close to home)

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:05 PM
French just said the state of emergency is expected to last up to three months. There's a vote to extend in 12 days.

Sounds like they're gearing up for something.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:06 PM

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: chishuppu

the war on Iraq? Sorry I didn't know we were at war with Iraq...I thought we were at war with a terrorist organization operating within the borders of Iraq...


Oh, we're very much at war with Iraq. It's Saddam's deposed generals who are leading ISIS and they're not happy about losing Saddam.

The U.S. military failed in the early years to recognize the role the disbanded Baathist officers would eventually come to play in the extremist group, eclipsing the foreign fighters whom American officials preferred to blame, said Col. Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the National Defense University who served as an adviser to top generals in Iraq and describes the links between Baathists and the Islamic State in his book, “Iraq After America.”

The U.S. military always knew that the former Baathist officers had joined other insurgent groups and were giving tactical support to the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate, the precursor to the Islamic State, he said. But American officials didn’t anticipate that they would become not only adjuncts to al-Qaeda, but core members of the jihadist group. -4f473416e759_story.html

So, yes, you're still fighting the Iraqi army. No wonder the soldiers in the employ of the current regime drop their weapons and run away.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:26 PM
How did they choose their targets, assuming they didn't just bomb indiscriminately? Where they given those targets by US intel? And if they knew about these targets before the attacks, why didn't they bomb them already or pass on the intel to Russia? I get the feeling all they did was do a routine bombing run on behalf of the US and gave some US airmen a day off.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:28 PM
a reply to: Cinrad

They found the targets during a surveillance flight last week.

So they say, anyway.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:41 PM

originally posted by: Cinrad
How did they choose their targets, assuming they didn't just bomb indiscriminately?

There is a resistance inside the IS controlled city of Raqqa, who supply information to Western sources. They reportedly say "I will make deals with the devil to bring down IS" Though some are killed for it when they are caught. There are regular public executions going on in that city now, against any detractors of IS.

The videos linked on this source would be a good place to start.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:44 PM
This is likely merely my tinfoil hat side speaking. And it may - as is always possible, lest we forget - simply be a suspicion formed due to inadequate information/ignorance on my part. So I humbly ask that anyone more informed than me please set me straight if this is the case.

However, just on a superficial reading of the dynamics in place at least... am I the only one who this all strikes as being sort of odd?

The two most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity have been in conflict with ISIS for months, ostensibly. One can argue that one side or the other has used more half-measures than direct action, certainly, but the fact remains that both have at least claimed to be at war with ISIS essentially. For months. The two most powerful armed forces in human history.

And yet, evidently, there is this place called Raqqa, which ISIS claims as their "capital," and which is routinely described as their "stronghold" by both the media and various persons with some degree of authority in these matters. France has now attacked this "stronghold," ostensibly destroying a training camp, a command center, and an ammunition facility, among other targets, in retaliation for horrendous and brutal terrorist attacks in their own capital.

Again, perhaps I'm simply horribly under-informed, and I concede that freely. But... did the aforementioned two most powerful armed forces in the history of the Earth ever target this stronghold/capital of the enemy with the same resolve France just did? And if not... why? France apparently was able to do so with extreme rapidity and agility (2 days from an event, to operational planning, to deployment, to successful strike is pretty quick, all things considered - if nothing else, when compared to the months and months of strikes carried out by the U.S. and more recently Russia, yes?)

Does this not seem like a logical and high priority target? Symbolically if nothing else? In a conflict in which morale and symbolism seem all-important? Does this not strike anyone else as extremely baffling? Again, I'm just a potentially woefully uninformed armchair observer. I readily admit this.

However, I've seen the U.S. attempt to prop up forces and personages friendly to it, in opposition to Assad, with the stated goal of removing Assad from power - and thus, presumably, to establish a regime which would, one expects, be friendlier to Western interests than Assad has been - under the pretense of fighting ISIS, or at least in conjunction with it. I've likewise watched as Russia, under the same pretense of fighting ISIS, strikes just as frequently if not more so at those same Western-backed forces as they do at ISIS, while knowing Russia has a vested interest in preserving a (or establishing a new) regime friendly to it for the sake of the port of Tartus if nothing else.

Yet, at no point have either the U.S. or Russia assaulted what everyone, ISIS included, describes as its capital and stronghold in Syria with the same immediacy and ruthlessness that France just did in short order? Am I just paranoid? Am I just stupid? Am I just ignorant of the nuances and realities at play? (All quite possible, as I've said!)

Please enlighten me. Because barring that, I'm extremely suspicious at this point. I've long harbored the suspicion that Syria is merely a proxy war in Cold War 2.0 between Russia and the U.S., with ISIS - in addition to being a legitimate security threat for both of them, make no mistake - being a convenient cassus beli for their involvement there beyond just Assad and his fate. The fact that this "stronghold" remains at all, despite the capabilities which could be brought to bear by the two most powerful air forces on the planet arguably, yet France is able to waltz over and strike them with seeming impunity, really gives me pause.

I'm just saying...


edit on 11/15/2015 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:10 PM
a reply to: AceWombat04

No tinfoil hat there, you nailed it.

Russia and the US both have little to no interest in actually fighting ISIS...they're only using them as an excuse to prop up their presence in Syria...(just like the US had little interest in actually finding WMD's in Iraq...)

They're just setting up their chess pieces right now...


posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:19 PM
a reply to: noonebutme

Supposedly, that's what separates us from them...

Yes, innocents die in wars...that's inevitable, and unavoidable. But, we at least try. Unlike the barbarians in Paris just the other night, or the swine in Beirut not long before.

If we become them in the process of fighting them, what exactly is accomplished?

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:28 PM
a reply to: seagull

Why do people expect this war to stay within some preordained specific borders? Why are they shocked when it comes home to roost? Why are they terrorists and we warriors? Or vice versa. Just asking.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:31 PM
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Who said it will. If we insist upon this course of bombing them 'til they glow, or whatever, it won't stay within those borders.

Good guy/Bad guy is pretty much defined by the observer, though in some cases the actions pretty much define good/bad. I'd have to say, ISIS's actions have pretty much defined which they are.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:32 PM
a reply to: seagull

Yeah, we don't generally fight nice people in wars.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:38 PM
Call me crazy, but I see a real super simple solution to bringing the Islamic State to their knees... no bombing or boots to the ground necessary:

You cut off their damn paymasters, each and every one of them.

That's it. End game.

And I'm willing to bet my right arm we have all the intel we need to accomplish the task.

But here's the problem...

Their paymasters are our paymasters.

Which in laymen terms means that we will never remove ANY terrorist group from the root because it will cut our own military/corporate/political shills at the roots too.

AKA - this crap is never going to end.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:39 PM
Knock-out gas the whole town, then revive the unarmed people. Problem solved.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in